Find a Lawyer

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 183 of 1967, decided on 2nd October 1967.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 18th April 1967; in Criminal Appeal No. 872 of 1965/Murder Reference No. 29 of 1966).

---

---Medical evidence‑Rigor mortis maybe delayed due to various facts‑No hard and fast rules about it‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302.

------

---‑Delay, condonation of--One of petitioners filing petition from jail in time‑Petition of other peti tioner time‑barred by S days‑Delay condoned in circumstances Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58(3).

--

--Conviction‑Courts below giving cogent re for accepting evidence of eye‑witnesses‑Leave to appeal refused Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58 (3).

Nazir Ahmad Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, (Amjad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by S. Inayat Hussain, Attorney for Petitioners.

Nemo for the State.

Date of hearing : 2nd October 1967.

.‑This petition is barred by time by 5 days. As one of the petitioners had filed a petition from Jail in time, we condone the delay.

Petitioners Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Hussain and one, Lal Din alias Lalu, were tried for offences under sections 366/34 and 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code by the Additional Sessions‑ Judge, Bahawalnagar. He convicted Muhammad Sharif under section 302, P. P. C. and sentenced him to death. He, however, acquitted both Muhammad Hussain and Lal Din of the charge of murder, but convicted them as well as Muhammad Sharif under section 366/34, P. P. C. and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for three years. On appeal and reference, the convictions and sentences of these petitioners were affirmed by the High Court. They now seek special leave to appeal to this Court.

The prosecution case briefly was that on 7th August 1963, at about digarwela the petitioners along with Lal Din and Khanu (absconder) armed with lethal weapons entered the house of Lal Khan in Basti Sahu, within Police Station Bhohar Farid, abducted his daughter Mst. Faiz Ilahi and when her uncle Mahmud tried to stop them, Muhammad Sharif shot him dead on the spot. They then took the girl to the Bohni of Gamun where Muhammad Sharif committed rape on her.

The defence was a plea of false implication out of enmity. The prosecution case rested on the evidence of the neighbours Allah Ditta and Ata Muhammad, chance witnesses Sattara and Muhammad Ramzan and the abducted girl Mst. Faiz Ilahi. The learned Judges of the High Court relying on their evidence main tained the convictions and sentences of the petitioners.

Mr. Nazir Ahmad Khan, the learned Counsel for the peti tioners, attempted to argue that the evidence of the eye‑witnesses was in conflict with the medical evidence in this case. According to the eye‑witnesses only one shot was fired at the deceased but the medical evidence was otherwise. Dr. Abdur Rashid who held the post‑mortem examination found the following injuries on the person of the deceased :‑

(1) A gun shot wound on the right forearm on the frontal side 4" below the elbow joint. Size is 3" x 2" and the wound is gaping.

(2) A gun shot wound 4" x 2". The wound is gaping on the back of the middle of left forearm.

(3) A gun shot wound on the right side of the chest 1 " x 1 " in diameter between 8 and 9th intercostal space showing, the point of entry of the bullet.

(4) Exit of the gun shot wound 4" x 3 coming out the intes tine and the omentum, on the left side of the chest 3" below the diaphragm.

In our opinion, it is possible to cause all these injuries with one shot and hence we are not impressed with the argument of the learned counsel.

It was next contended that the post‑mortem examination was held at 10 a.m. on 8th August 1963, when the rigor mortis had not started and as such the story that the occurrence took place at digarwsla on 7th August 1963, was false. No doubt, the doctor has said that generally in hot weather rigor mortis starts after six hours, but there are no hard and fast rules about it. It will suffice to say that rigor mortis may be delayed due to various other facts.

Hence, we are also unable to accept this contention.

This was a day‑light murder. The Courts below have given cogent reasons for accepting the evidence of the eye‑witnesses. We therefore see no good ground for interference.

This petition is accordingly dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.